Case 2:21-cv-00123-JRG Document 71 Filed 11/19/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 980
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`VOCALIFE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HARMAN INTERNATIONAL
`INDUSTRIES INC., GOOGLE LLC
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00123-JRG
`
`ORDER
`Before the Court is Defendant Google LLC’s (“Google”) Motion to Stay Pending
`
`Resolution of Motion to Transfer or Dismiss (the “Motion to Stay”). (Dkt. No. 56). Having
`
`considered the Motion to Stay and the parties’ briefing, the Court finds that it should be
`
`GRANTED-AS-MODIFIED.
`
`Plaintiff Vocalife LLC (“Vocalife”) filed suit against Google on April 2, 2021 alleging
`
`infringement of two United States Patents relating to microphone array technology. (Dkt. No. 1,
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00123-JRG).1 On June 11, 2021, Google filed its Motion to Dismiss for
`
`Improper Venue or, in the Alternative, to Transfer (the “Motion to Dismiss”). (Dkt. No. 21, Case
`
`No. 2:21-cv-00124). Briefing was completed for the Motion to Dismiss on August 5, 2021. (Dkt.
`
`No. 44). On August 17, 2021, Google filed its unopposed Motion for Hearing on its Motion to
`
`Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 52). Google then filed the Motion to Stay on September 3, 2021. (Dkt. No. 56).
`
`Briefing was completed for the Motion to Stay on October 1, 2021. (Dkt. No. 67).
`
`1 Case No. 2:21-cv-00124 was subsequently consolidated with the above-captioned matter with the above case being
`designated as the lead case. (Dkt. No. 20).
`
`Page 1 of 4
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1045
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00123-JRG Document 71 Filed 11/19/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 981
`
`“The district court has the inherent power to control its own docket, including the power
`
`to stay proceedings.” Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 2d 660, 662 (E.D. Tex.
`
`2005) (citations omitted). Management of the court’s docket requires “the exercise of judgment,
`
`which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299
`
`U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Courts generally consider the following factors when considering a motion
`
`to stay: “(1) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the
`
`nonmoving party; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and
`
`(3) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set.” Datatreasury Corp. v.
`
`Wells Fargo & Co., 490 F. Supp. 2d 749, 754 (E.D. Tex. 2006) (citation omitted). While these
`
`factors are “helpful in determining whether to order a stay, ultimately the Court must decide stay
`
`requests on a case-by-case basis.” Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. TP-Link Techs., Co., No. 6:13-
`
`CV-384, 2014 WL 5035718, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2014) (citation omitted).
`
`After careful consideration of the parties’ arguments and the related briefing, the Court is
`
`persuaded that this case would benefit from a short and targeted stay to further address issues
`
`relating to Google’s Motion to Dismiss. A stay will not unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical
`
`disadvantage to the nonmoving party because Vocalife has repeatedly asserted that venue
`
`discovery is warranted. (Dkt. No. 28 at 22–23; Dkt. No. 44 at 6). Further, in its Sur-Reply, Vocalife
`
`argues that it has received no responses to its “venue-related” discovery requests from Google and
`
`expresses its concern that “Google intends to use the requested stay to avoid producing discovery
`
`relevant to venue.” (Dkt. No. 67 at 1). A stay at this juncture will allow Vocalife to pursue
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1045
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00123-JRG Document 71 Filed 11/19/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 982
`
`discovery related to venue before other issues, such as the Markman hearing, are considered by
`
`this Court.2 The Court further finds that the posture of this case does not preclude a stay.3
`
`The Court has discretion to allow targeted venue discovery. Moore v. CITGO Ref. &
`
`Chemicals Co., L.P., 735 F.3d 309, 315 (5th Cir. 2013) (“A district court has broad discretion in
`
`all discovery matters, and such discretion will not be disturbed ordinarily unless there are unusual
`
`circumstances showing a clear abuse.”). In all cases, discovery decisions “must . . . adhere to the
`
`liberal spirit of the Rules” of Civil Procedure. U.S., ex rel., Rigsby v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
`
`794 F.3d 457, 469 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d sub nom. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby,
`
`137 S. Ct. 436 (2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). The Court’s discretion—and the liberal
`
`thrust of the Rules of Civil Procedure—extends to venue discovery. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v.
`
`Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 n.13 (1978) (“[W]here issues arise as to jurisdiction or venue,
`
`discovery is available to ascertain the facts bearing on such issues.”).
`
`Vocalife’s assertions of venue rely heavily on this Court’s previous ruling in Personalized
`
`Media Communications, LLC v. Google LLC. (No. 2:19-cv-00090, Dkt. No. 291 (E.D. Tex. July
`
`16, 2020). However, the Court notes that Vocalife does not dispute Google’s assertion that the
`
`statement of work underlying much of the Court’s analysis was terminated more than two months
`
`before this suit was filed. (Dkt. No. 21 at 9–10; see also Dkt. No. 21-21). In light of Vocalife’s
`
`assertions that Google has not provided sufficient information regarding its contacts with this
`
`District (see Dkt. No. 28 at 22–23), the Court is of the opinion that Vocalife should be permitted
`
`to take narrowly tailored discovery to facilitate a fair and full adjudication of the parties’ venue
`
`disputes, and a targeted stay related thereto is appropriate. It is therefore ORDERED that Vocalife
`
`
`2 Now scheduled for January 14, 2022.
`3 The parties have yet to submit opening claim construction briefs and the date set for the Markman hearing is still
`two months away.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1045
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00123-JRG Document 71 Filed 11/19/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 983
`
`may serve on Google five interrogatories, five requests for production, and a Rule 30(b)(6)
`
`deposition notice limited to issues raised in Google’s Motion to Dismiss (Case No. 2:21-cv-00124,
`
`Dkt. No. 21) and the related briefing. The parties shall notify the Court of the results of such
`
`targeted discovery. Such discovery shall be completed no later than 60 days from the date of this
`
`Order. Further, it is ORDERED that all deadlines in the above-captioned matter unrelated to the
`
`Motion to Dismiss are STAYED pending further order of the Court. Upon lifting such stay, the
`
`Court shall enter a revised Docket Control Order to reset and adjust the remaining timeline in this
`
`case.
`
`4
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of November, 2021.
`
`Page 4 of 4
`
`SONOS EXHIBIT 1045
`
`